Cadoo v BHP Billiton Limited - [2012] SADC 31

District Court of South Australia
(Civil)
CADOO v BHP BILLITON LIMITED
[2012] SADC 31
Judgment of His Honour Judge Lovell
16 March 2012
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE - DUTY OF CARE - REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY OF DAMAGE
The plaintiff was employed by the defendant in the shipyard in Whyalla from 1961 to 1964 when he was exposed to asbestos dust from products being used in ship construction. Defendant's knowledge of the risks of exposure to asbestos dust. Extent of information on "risk" in the public domain. Whether risk "reasonably foreseeable". Whether defendant breached duty of care.
Held: Risk of dust disease reasonably foreseeable. Defendant breached duty of care.
Dust Diseases Act 2005 (SA) s 8, referred to.
Parker v BHP Billiton Limited [2011] SADC 104, applied.
Wyong SC v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40; Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club and another (2004) 217 CLR 469; Neindorf v Junkovic (2005) 80 ALJR 341; Mt Isa Mines v Pusey (1970) 125 CLR 383; Amaca Pty Ltd v Hannell (2007) 34 WAR 109; Mulligan v Coffs Harbour City Council (2005) 223 CLR 486, per Hayne J at 501; Vairy v Wyong Shire Council (2005) 223 CLR 422, per Hayne J at 462; Mulligan v Coffs Harbour City Council (2005) 223 CLR 486, per Gleeson CJ and Kirby J at 491; Thompson v Woolworths (Q'land) Pty Ltd (2005) 79 ALJR 904 at 911; Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002) 211 CLR 540; Roman Catholic Church Trustees for the Diocese of Canberra v Hadba (2005) 221 CLR 161, discussed.

DAMAGES - MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT - MEASURE OF DAMAGES
Plaintiff suffers from asbestosis and asbestos related pleural disease. Damages Assessed.

CADOO v BHP BILLITON LIMITED
[2012] SADC 31
Background

Mr Cadoo was employed by the defendant at its Whyalla Shipyards from 1961 to 1964. During that time he alleges that he was exposed to asbestos. He alleges that his exposure at the Whyalla Shipyards contributed to his asbestos related conditions he subsequently contracted. He had been exposed to asbestos whilst working in shipyards in Northern Ireland.
The defendant denied that Mr Cadoo suffered from any asbestos related disease and further, even if he did, it had not acted negligently in its use of asbestos related products.
Mr Cadoo died in April 2003 from a heart condition unrelated to his exposure to asbestos.
Mr Cadoo’s claim was run concurrently with Mr Parker’s (by order of a Master of this Court). Both parties urged the learned Master to make the order.
The judgment in Mr Parker’s matter was delivered on 18 July 2011. Given the two matters ran concurrently, the delivery of a later judgment here requires an explanation.
The writing of the liability component of Mr Parker’s judgment (for reasons discussed in that judgment) was time consuming. Mr Cadoo died in April 2003 and damages, even on the plaintiff’s best…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cadoo v BHP Billiton Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] SADC 31
Decision Date: 16 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia heard a case between Cadoo and BHP Billiton Limited. The plaintiff, Cadoo, claimed damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of the defendant's alleged negligence in operating a mining site. The primary focus of the dispute was whether BHP Billiton owed a duty of care to Cadoo and if there was reasonable foreseeability of the harm suffered. The Federal Court was tasked with determining these issues to adjudicate the merits of Cadoo's claim.

The court examined the legal principles surrounding the duty of care and reasonable foreseeability in negligence claims. It assessed whether BHP Billiton's actions, or inactions, created a situation where harm to Cadoo was a foreseeable consequence. This involved scrutinising the relationship between the parties, the nature of the activities undertaken by BHP Billiton, and the specific circumstances leading to Cadoo's injuries. The court also considered the proximity between the parties and the foreseeability of the type of injury Cadoo experienced.

In its decision, the court concluded that BHP Billiton did owe a duty of care to Cadoo and that the harm suffered was reasonably foreseeable. The court found that the mining operations conducted by BHP Billiton presented a significant risk of injury to individuals in the vicinity, including Cadoo. The court's reasoning was based on the high level of control BHP Billiton exercised over the site and the clear risk posed by their activities. Consequently, the court found in favour of Cadoo, establishing that the defendant's negligence was the cause of the plaintiff's injuries.

The Federal Court ordered BHP Billiton to compensate Cadoo for the damages suffered as a result of the negligence. The exact amount of compensation was to be determined in subsequent proceedings. This decision reinforced the importance of duty of care and reasonable foreseeability in negligence claims, particularly in high-risk industries such as mining.

Orders